CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 3 décembre 2009

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s87C74EA6 { font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sDDF70912 { color:#ff6600 } .s7F74B77E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; font-size:12pt } .sF8AEFD1F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4894483B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s2F9A9989 { width:28.78pt; display:inline-block } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .sD0B5C7A1 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s41E9DBF5 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s24AC208E { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF004B676 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s347D1DBA { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s1F7521B { width:25.45pt; display:inline-block } .sA2C8F410 { width:22.11pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .s846B54EF { font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } Resolution CM/ResDH(2009)134 [1] Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Sokolowski against Poland   (Application No. 75955/01, judgment of 29 March 2005, final on 29 June 2005)     The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);   Having regard to the judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee once it had become final;   Recalling that the violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concerns a breach of the right to freedom of expression due to the applicant's criminal conviction for defamation following a publication in a political leaflet (violation of article 10) and the severity of the sentence (see details in Appendix);   Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with its obligation under Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgment;   Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee's Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;   Having satisfied itself that, within the time-limit set, the respondent state paid the applicant the just satisfaction provided in the judgment (see details in Appendix),   Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded by the Court in its judgments, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate: - of individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum ; and   - of general measures preventing similar violations;     DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix), that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and   DECIDES to close the examination of this case.   Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2009)134   Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of Sokolowski against Poland     Introductory case summary   The case concerns the violation of the applicant'sright to freedom of expression due to his criminal conviction for defamation (violation of Article 10). The applicant was convicted because of an article published in 1995 in a political pamphlet in which he contended that local councillors (in particular the councillor who initiated the proceedings against him) appointed themselves members of local election committees out of self-interest. His conviction was finally confirmed by the Supreme Court in February 2001. The European Court found that this measure was not necessary in a democratic society, as the pamphlet in question concerned matters of public interest and that the sentence, a fine of 1   000 PLN (equivalent to his monthly salary) or imprisonment in case of failure to pay, was too harsh.     I.   Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures   a) Details of just satisfaction   Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total 700 EUR 4   000 EUR - 4   700 EUR Paid on 28/09/2005   b) Individual measures   In October 1997 the applicant paid the fine imposed on him in violation of Article 10. Moreover, under Article 107, paragraph 4, of the Criminal Code currently in force, such penalty is automatically removed from the criminal record after 5 years following its execution. At the request of the condemned person, the judge may order the striking-out of the penalty after 3 years. The data concerning the applicant's conviction were thus removed from the Criminal Register and the Central Register of Condemned Persons in 2002. Lastly, under Article 540, paragraph 3, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant has the right to request the reopening of the proceedings which concern him, by invoking the finding of a violation of the Convention by the European Court.     II.   General measures   The Ministry of Justice has sent out a circular to the presidents of courts of appeal drawing their attention to the European Court's conclusions in this judgment and asking them to inform the judges under their administrative jurisdiction. Moreover, the judges of the Supreme Court have become acquainted with the European Court's judgment through the legal journal Review of the European Case-law in Criminal Cases ( Przegląd Orzecznictwa Europejskiego w Sprawach Karnych , No 1/2005 and 4/2005), accessible on the Internet and Intranet website of the Supreme Court (www.sn.pl<http://www.sn.pl>. The European Court's judgment has been published on the Internet website of the Ministry of Justice: www.ms.gov.pl.     III.   Conclusions of the respondent state   The government considers that the measures adopted will prevent similar violations and that Poland has thus complied with its obligations under Article   46, paragraph 1 of the Convention. [1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 3 December 2009 at the 1072nd meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies